| From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements |
| Date: | 2023-05-09 03:54:14 |
| Message-ID: | CALj2ACVzoFSr+CwHFVZ0NYMzZi-XvpsHNw6vK-rAhYcVp+VzWA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 9:02 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 04:04:10PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 05:57:09PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> >> test-case 1: -T5, WAL ~16 bytes
> >> test-case 1: -t1000, WAL ~16 bytes
> >
> > I wonder if it's worth doing a couple of long-running tests, too.
>
> Yes, 5s or 1000 transactions per client is too small, though it shows
> that things are going in the right direction.
I'll pick a test case that generates a reasonable amount of WAL 256
bytes. What do you think of the following?
test-case 2: -T900, WAL ~256 bytes (for c in 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256
512 768 1024 2048 4096 - takes 3.5hrs)
test-case 2: -t1000000, WAL ~256 bytes
If okay, I'll fire the tests.
--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-05-09 03:57:21 | Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-05-09 03:50:01 | Re: DROP DATABASE is interruptible |